Oddiduro and Pa(b)st. You are factual as far as your analyses go, but omitting what is very likely to be a pivotal factor in this Fall's election, and that is whether or not the democrats can succeed in making the Fall election into a referendum on the Bush administration. At this point anyway it would seem McCain, to court a particular segment of the Republican electorate, is swimming toward the Bush Ship of State. A Ship that is clearly foundering in a storm of criticism and about to capsize. Tradition has it that to survive one should swim away from a sinking ship. If McCain switches course now and tries to return to his former maverick image, he will be painted as wishy washy. And we all know what happened to the last "flip-flopper" to run. Their are two other lesser factors that are bound to play a role and therefore should not be ignored in your analyses. One is McCain's age, the other is the role of independents. In general, Hillary has been strong in states where independents could not vote, whereas Obama has been strong in states where they could. It might be wise to take some money off the table, Pa(b)st.
You don't get it. People aren't voting for HC nor will they be voting for McCain. People are starting to vote against Obama. From the Chicago Tribune:"Obama's ability to attract independents paid off in earlier nomination contests, and our mid-April poll found that Obama was well ahead among this group,'' they say. "Clinton has now flipped these voters into her category with nearly the same advantage Obama held two weeks earlier with a lead among pure independents (56 percent Clinton to 38 percent Obama) Republican-leaning independents (54 percent Clinton to 46 percent Obama), and has drawn even with Democratic-leaning independents at 47 percent.)" It's over for Obama. The numbers just aren't there.
Imagine the market sell off that will precede the implementation of a 25% capital gains tax. Obama uses Buffett's OK as validation of his capital gains tax hike proposal in every interview. The blowhard in Omaha is a little out of reality for the non-billionaire's that really do get hit by a huge capital gains tax increase.
Back to taxes. Three points. One, capital gains come from money that has already been taxed once as income. Double taxation seems unfair. Two, to address Pabst's concern for wage earners, most of them pay no federal income tax now. They do pay SS and medicare, but those are separate retirement systems. Three, Obama's comment about fairness seemed to be directed at hedge fund managers who earn huge amounts but pay cap gains rates because of the so-called carried interest scam. I agree that it is an outrage. Why should a fund manager be able to call his incentive compensation a cap gain when an ordinary bonus or commission is ordinary income? Of course, the democrats had an opportunity to corrct this but chose not to do so. Wonder why? Surely campaign contributions wouldn't deter them from correcting an obviosu injustice.
Ah, Pa(b)st, let's set aside for the moment your record on predicting election outcomes, especially your own, and wait until after Tuesday to carry this conversation further.
The correct spelling is "racist" and Obama plays the race card very well. His class warfare rhetoric is little more than "let's make whitey" (and perhaps Jews and hard-working Asians and Indians) fund my plans to send money down the drains of of "education," welfare, etc.
Careful about the tendency to assume. It makes an... well, you know the rest. You have no clue what my personal views are. Aside from that, the reasons that Obama stands no chance were enumerated above. It's a demographic problem. Reagan Democrats will flock to McCain when (not if) Obama wins the nomination. Hispanics will flock to him as well. The detrimental effect of the Reverend Jeremiah cannot be overstated. His rants have put a picture in the minds of many Americans, and it's not a pretty one. Pabst is sometimes dead wrong, but in this he's right; people will be voting against Obama in droves. I think this represents a fatal underestimation of the large, politically motivated groups of people who would try to make sure he doesn't get into the White House. The threat to his campaign is not Clinton or McCain. It is him. At any rate, we won't have to wait too long to find out what happens. Should be interesting.
the US gov't is basically broke. they like to tax the billion dollar mutual fund and hedge funds. who don't create any jobs. but paper wealth Let's put it this way. Simple common sense would dictate that if we increase the capital gains rate to 90%, very few are going to be intererested in making long term investments. So when you say there would be little difference between 15% and 24%, you are now making claim that YOU know what tax rate can be applied that won't reduce interest in long term investment. Because we already know that there IS a level that would shut investment off. Actually economic theory would tell you that the higher the tax, the less of the activity. So activity gradually tapers down as the tax increases, until it ceases at some onerous level. You know, when you make the statement regarding a 3X investment, what you evidently didn't consider is that some people might make such an investment, all other things being equal, despite higher capital gains rates, but then might well decide that because the rate is so high, that they would not sell at all. Think this is not the case? Read about Warren Buffet sometime. His idea is to keep his investments....because the tax burden is high enough that it then discourages the idea of selling one to buy another....because each time you sell, you have a haircut to pay which means that your next investment must be that much more successful. Now, lets say you make the 3X investment, but then you don't sell because the tax rate is high enough to discourage. This means that activity drops, and ultimately LESS money is available for long term investment. Remember, it doesn't take everyone acting in this manner, just some will reduce investment. Now, if you don't think long term investment results in more jobs, and in general, higher economic growth, let me know. By the way, I know you understand that "long term investment" is not restricted to just stock market investments. It could be a private equity type of deal, venture capital, etc etc. The bottom line is that increasing capital gains taxes will discourage some participants. For other participants, it will reduce their desire to sell at all, and therefore reduce their activity. There is little doubt that at the margin, activity will decrease, and this will negatively impact both jobs and economic growth. OldTrader